AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant, Charles Noriega, appealed in a self-represented capacity from the district court's judgment and sentence, as well as an order of remand, which followed his de novo appeal from municipal court to district court. The appeal raised issues regarding the lack of provided counsel and alleged judicial bias against him.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Chaves County, James M. Hudson, District Judge, dated February 19, 2018.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that both the municipal court and district court erred by not providing him with counsel and that the courts exhibited judicial bias against him.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the municipal court and district court erred in not providing the Defendant counsel.
• Whether the courts exercised judicial bias against the Defendant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence, and order of remand.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, with JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge, and EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge concurring:
  The Court noted that for an error to be reversible, it must be prejudicial. The Defendant did not demonstrate how the absence of counsel during initial hearings, especially when the only charge with a possibility of imprisonment was dismissed prior to trial, prejudiced him (para 2).
  Regarding the claim of judicial bias, the Court found that the Defendant did not provide any argument to counter the Court's notice of proposed disposition, relying instead on conclusory statements. This did not meet the burden of demonstrating error on appeal (para 3).